The first reference the OED has to of the clock is from Chaucer's Prologue dated 1386 (presumably they had clocks).
c1386 Chaucer Parson's Prol. 5 Ten of the clokke it was tho as I
The most recent reference to of the clock is from Gladstone speaking in Parliament in 1884
1884 Gladstonein Parlt. 26 Feb. 2/5 That the Speaker..be ...
No. In Modern English, o'clock is not a contraction, and of the clock does not exist as an idiomatic expression. (It can occur literally, for example I saw it on top of the clock; but it doesn't exist in the sense of telling the time).
Considering the following data
I didn't check my voicemail = I did not check my voicemail.
Didn't you check your voicemail? = Did you not check your voicemail?
*Did not you check your voicemail? (the asterisk means it's ungrammatical)
Not only is there an uncontracted sentence available for every contracted one, but there is a statement (ideally, the ...
It's absolutely considered grammatically correct. Remember, languages change over time, and abbreviations being added to languages is normal, sometimes leaving the abbreviation in common usage but the expanded form not in common usage.
This is one of those cases. The abbreviated usages are correct and very common:
There is no difference in meaning.
There is a mild difference in use:
Contractions like can't have until recently been strongly deprecated in the most formal writing, and it will usually be avoided in legal/bureaucratic contexts. But the academic dialect (at least in the humanities) is creeping closer to the colloquial style, and using can't will not ...
You'd has two meanings, which are you had and you would.1 We use you had with better and you would with rather. You had is usually used for suggestion.
Example: You'd better (you had better) avoid the stalls on the street.
So you'd means you had in your first sentence. Your second sentence is grammatically wrong.
1According to The Cambridge ...
It's always correct. "X is Y" can always be shortened to "X's Y". Sometimes it will cause ambiguity, though. For example, does
refer to the toast owned by Jorge? Or does it mean
Jorge is toast
in which case, somebody is going to kill Jorge soon. Ambiguity isn't ungrammatical English, but it is good practice to try and provide ...
Grammatically speaking, all the three constructs are correct. The non-contracted first one is more formal. The choice between the other two can be made only by euphonic considerations, i.e. whichever sounds nicer or is easier to pronounce given the surrounding words.
The very colloquial I'd've is not unheard of either.
Of the clock is used to mark time well into the 20th century, though it is largely limited to legislative record-keeping:
1902 (House of Commons)
1907 (New Zealand Legislative Council)
1925 (Newfoundland House of Assembly)
The phrase also appears in At Swim-Two-Birds, a 1939 novel by Irish writer Brian O'Nolan:
I was acquainted of the way by angels, ...
The phrase 'o'clock' is a linguistic fossil, and is never written as 'of the clock'.
It actually dates from the 14th century when clocks first started to be installed in churches to tell the hours. Before that, time had been computed by the position of the sun - there were twelve hours to the day and twelve to the night, so winter daytime hours were much ...
WesT's answer points out that expanding the contraction works if you allow the subject to be omitted. In fact, rather than don't being an unusual feature of the examples in the question, it's the you that was the unusual feature; it's more usual with the English imperative to omit it, though it can be included for emphasis.
Part of the question that wasn't ...
You feel that because you're probably forgetting that I'd can also mean I would.
Because chase is in the present tense and also because to is not in the phrase, the correct uncontracted form is I would chase him down.
So yes, the meaning changes completely in this case.
There is also another question which explains the use of I would vs. I had in ...
I think what'd he is the shortest form of "what did he..." that would be readily understood. You might get away with "what'dee" - as in "What'dee say?" Also:
"whatta ya" (what do you)
"why'n'cha" (why don't you)
"didja" (did you)
and "why'd'ya" (why did you)
Questions framed as “Does not X ...?” “Is not Y ...?” “Should not Z ...?” and the like are certainly grammatical, and to me they seem every bit as unambiguous as the corresponding forms “Does X not ...?” “Is Y not ...?” and “Should Z not ...?” Nevertheless, they are not the forms normally used in contemporary English speech or writing; and when they do ...
Flush means 'well supplied with money'
'is is his : dropping the initial 'h' of words is a characteristic of certain British accents and often used by writers to indicate that characters are not refined.
This is what's called a spelled pronunciation: the speaker, who sounds like a stereotypical cockney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney), "drops" certain letters, and when the writer writes their speech, they omit the letters too, so as to mimic the style of speaking. The apostrophe is added to indicate to the reader that this has been done deliberately....
To answer your first question, if you choose to use a contraction, the apostrophe is obligatory, not merely correct.
An adjustment's been made to your account.
To answer your second question, you should probably use the "long version" anyway.
The answer is that English doesn't need to use "do not + nonauxiliary*" (aka "do support"), since it did perfectly well when it didn't. It's just that you need to use it in order to not sound archaic.
For example, the Tyndale Bible, 1526:
Yf I do not the workes off my father, beleue me not.
The reason it sounds archaic is because it is. English had ...
Redundancy is not ungrammatical. Frequently, the absence of redundancy is ungrammatical: the -s affix in a sentence like “The dog barks” redundantly indicates that the subject of the sentence is third-person singular, but we cannot say *“The dog bark” instead.
Negative imperatives in English are formed by placing “don’t” (or “do not”) before the plain form ...
You can use an apostrophe, but it's not necessary. OED lists both night and 'night:
‘Good-night. I'm goin' to roost.’ ‘Night, Dave.’
(1912) Being the Story of What Happened When Buck Peters, Hopalong Cassidy, and Their Bar-20 Associates Went to Montana
‘'Night.’ ‘'Night.’ It was cold in the bedroom.
(1992) Come the Executioner
And Urban Dictionary ...
"isn't" is not really expressed over a fact, so it does not really implicate the word meaning as "is not". Isn't that weird?, or Isn't she lovely? is asked when you know that it is and you want to 'confirm' the same 'feelings' with others.
Building on the answers relating to the use of the expression in the UK Parliament, it's interesting to note that both the validity of the expression "… of the clock" and its archaism were brought out in this (perhaps vaguely humorous?) reference in the House of Commons in 2001:
"By 3.30 this afternoon, or half-past three of the clock as my right
By Googling "contraction antonym oxford" Oxford offered the following:
contraction: shorten (a word or phrase) by combination or
elision. "these sources were called quasistellar objects, which
was soon contracted to quasar"
synonyms: shorten, abbreviate, cut, reduce, abridge, truncate "the name ‘Jacquenard’ was soon contracted to ‘Jack’ in ...
I would say that there's nothing grammatically wrong with the construction Do not you want to know?, but that it would not normally be encountered in present-day speech or writing. It might well be found in verse, however, as it has a nice iambic rhythm. Another way of wording the same phrase in a way that would sound peculiar in modern everyday language, ...